Smt. Shanta Gupta vs Suryaprakash And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7460 Chatt

                                       1

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                Order Sheet

                              SA No. 223 of 2015

              Smt. Shanta Gupta Versus Suryaprakash And Anr.



12/12/2022         Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate appears along with Shri
             Shubhank Tiwari, counsel for the Appellant.
                   Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State/
             Respondent No.2.

Arguments heard on admission.

Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Second Appeal No. 223 of 2015

 Smt. Shanta Gupta W/o P.C. Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o Dabripara Bilaspur, At Present, Saraswati Nagar, Dabripara, Bilaspur, Police Station And Post Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Suryaprakash S/o Late P.S. Naidu Aged About 59 Years R/o Parvati Niwas (Wrongly Mentioned As Parvati Niwasi), Shivaji Marg, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Police Station And Post Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Appellant : Shri Manoj Paranjape along with Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment/Order on Board

12.12.2022

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'),

questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated

22.01.2015, passed by the 2 nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in

Civil Appeal No.49-A/2014, whereby the learned appellate Court, while

affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 passed by the 1 st

Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.110-A/2009, has dismissed

the Plaintiff's suit. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter

as per their description before the Court below.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit

claiming declaration of title by submitting, inter alia, that by virtue of the

registered deed of sale dated 04.12.1990, she purchased the property

bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k, admeasuring 0.06 acres from K. Maheshwar

Rao s/o K. Venkat Rao through power of attorney holder, namely,

Suryaprakash, defendant No.1 herein, while property bearing Khasra No.

993/4-=, admeasuring 0.10 acres from R.Venkatesulu S/o S. Ramaswami

through his power of attorney holder namely, Suryaprakash under the

sale dated 04.12.1990. It is pleaded further that since the date of

purchase, she is in possession over the alleged suit lands, and when she

went to her said property on 15.05.2006 along with her labourers and

contractor, defendants No. 1 and 2 had obstructed her from raising any

kind of construction, and therefore, she has been constrained to institute

the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 24.08.2006.

3. Defendant No.1-Suryaprakash, who was the power of attorney holder of

the said vendors, was proceeded ex-parte, while defendant No.2/State

has contested the suit by saying that the property bearing Khasra No.

993/4-=, admeasuring 0.15 acres is recorded in the name of one

Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit property bearing Khasra

No.993/4-{k is recorded in the name of State and that the property bearing

Khasra No. 993/4, which is not the subject matter of the suit is recorded

as "Bade Jhaad ke Jungle". Therefore, the claim as made by the Plaintiff

deserves to be dismissed.

4. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at

a conclusion that the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-= is recorded

in the name of Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, whereas, the suit property

bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k is recorded in the name of State government

and, accordingly, it was held that defendant No.1, the power of attorney

holder of said vendors, was not authorized to alienate the aforesaid suit

properties in favour of plaintiff. The suit was, thus, dismissed and, was

affirmed further by the lower appellate court in appeal preferred by the

Plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the

Plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the findings

recorded by the Courts below without considering the alleged sales (Exs.

P-1 and P-2) in its proper manner, has erred in holding that the suit

properties bearing Khasra No. 993/4-= is recorded in the name of

Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit property being bearing Khasra

No.993/4-{k in the name of State government while dismissing the

Plaintiff's claim.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and perused the

entire record carefully.

7. From perusal of the record, it appears that by virtue of the registered

deed of sale dated 04.12.1990(Ex.P-2), the suit property bearing Khasra

No. 993/4-=, admeasuring 0.10 acres was sold by defendant No.1-

Suryaprakash, while acting as a power of attorney holder of one R.

Venkatesulu S/o S. Ramaswami to the Plaintiff, while the suit property

bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k was sold while acting as power of attorney of

K. Maheshwar Rao S/o K. Venkat Rao under sale dated 04.12.1990

(Ex.P-1). Although, the registered deed of sales were executed as such,

however, a perusal of the document, known as Khasra Panchashala for

the year 2009-2010, marked as Ex. D2-C, would reveal the fact that the

suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-= admeasuring 0.15 acres is

recorded in the name of Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit

property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k, admeasuring 1.00 acres is recorded

in the name of State government. Both the suit properties are thus,

appear to be recorded in different names, who were not the vendors of

the alleged sales(Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). That apart, in order to establish

the fact that the Plaintiff has purchased those suit properties under the

said sales (Exs.P-1 and P-2), the burden was heavily upon the Plaintiff to

establish the same. However, the Plaintiff has completely failed to

establish the said fact as none of the attesting witnesses of those sales

were examined nor the real owners of those properties were examined.

Even defendant No.1- Suryaprakash, who sold those suit properties while

acting as a power of attorney holder of those vendors was not examined.

In view thereof and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it is

difficult to hold that the Plaintiff has acquired the ownership of the said

suit properties under those sales. The courts below, therefore, after

considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties have

not committed any illegality in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim.

8. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any question of law,

much less the substantial questions of law, which arise for determination

in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly

dismissed.

            No order as to costs.                              Sd/-


                                                      (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                                                            JUDGE



sunita